Guides get a big kick out of clients with big knives.
Here shown together are the Buck 118 and Buck 110 (shown with a Buck 303 Cadet medium stockman for size comparison). OH
I'll piggyback on these two. My first real hunting knife was a Buck 118(1969-79) like the top one in OH's post. It will do it all and do it well gut, skin and butcher. I've used it exclusively on elk and deer, as well as upland and waterfowl...coyote(well, when their pelts sold for good money). 420HC is great, my 118 has the 440C which makes knowing how to sharpen even more essential.It's not about the size of the knife. It's knowing how to use the knife properly. It takes practice and patience.
AND it has to be sharp. If you are going to buy her a knife teach her how to maintain it.
I'll piggyback on these two. My first real hunting knife was a Buck 118(1969-79) like the top one in OH's post. It will do it all and do it well gut, skin and butcher. I've used it exclusively on elk and deer, as well as upland and waterfowl...coyote(well, when their pelts sold for good money). 420HC is great, my 118 has the 440C which makes knowing how to sharpen even more essential.
TAK65, is right about size, and knowing how to use it. Not sure how a beginner gets practice, or patience...especially when it's sub-zero and you have lost the feeling in all your extremities...but Buck's 118 is my choice for the knife. I would not use a slippy for this task, taking care of the build up of blood, fat, meat, and hair when processing a freshly killed game would take more patience than I have!
Field dressing yes, but we get the deer back to camp whole (so we can record live weight) and use a gambrel and pulley. With a gambrel the head is down and there is no way to clear out the chest cavity if you don't open the rib cage.A deer-sized animal can be field-dressed, skinned and butchered with the sternum and pelvic arch intact, and, in fact, it is preferred because the meat is kept cleaner, in addition to preserving the integrity of one's tools.
We almost always left the sternum intact, and dont ever recall anyone who I've worked up whitetail with splitting the pelvis either. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Once a cousin of mine wanted to get into deer hunting. ( to be fair we never really hunted deer growing up, mostly small game) He'd bought some VHS tapes about it, and my Dad let him hunt our property. When he got his deer he gutted on his own but we helped skin and quarter it. In the process, my cousin was acting like a know it all because he watched how the "professionals" done it. Well he insists we split the sternum to which my Dad and I reacted like say what? Lol. Well my Dad says "Its your deer and your show, I'll go get a saw" . While he was gone into the building to get a saw, I used my Case daddy barlow (still have it, y'all seen me post it) to cut down both sides of the sternum through the cartilage. Cousin says "Thats not how your supposed to do it!" Our dog loved it by the wayLots of good points made here by several folk. A comment or two about cutting bones has led me to suggest that I have field dressed, skinned and butchered several dozen medium game animals (deer and pronghorn) and I no longer use a knife to cut any bones, such as the pelvic arch and sternum. In fact, I don't use ANY tool to do that because there is absolutely no reason to do it at all. On moose or elk that might be different (re sternum). A deer-sized animal can be field-dressed, skinned and butchered with the sternum and pelvic arch intact, and, in fact, it is preferred because the meat is kept cleaner, in addition to preserving the integrity of one's tools. To do the field work requires a knife that is no larger than a paring knife, although I go bigger than that. A Buck 119 (for instance) is absurdly overkill for working on animals. It might be quite nice for various bush jobs. Guides get a big kick out of clients with big knives.